Where next for the US and the Paris deal?

Elle Hunt

Trump framed his decision to pull the US from the landmark Paris climate agreement as “a reassertion of America’s sovereignty”, adding he was “elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris.”

He said the US could try to re-enter the deal under more favourable terms or work to establish “an entirely new transaction” – but indicated that it would hardly be of high priority. “If we can, great. If we can’t, that’s fine,” he said.

As my colleague David Smithreported earlier, the White House says America will follow the lengthy exit process outlined in the deal, meaning it will remain in the agreement (at least formally) for another three-and-a-half years – taking us right up to the next presidential election in November 2020.

Though the US will remain part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Trump declared: “As of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris accord.”

That includes contributions to the UN Green Climate Fund (to help poorer countries to adapt to climate change and expand clean energy) and reporting on carbon data (though that is required in the US by domestic regulations anyway).

In a joint statement, the leaders of France, Germany and Italy responded to Trump’s decision “with regret”, but said the Paris agreement could not be renegotiated.

The question now becomes what efforts, if any, the US will adopt towards tackling climate change on its own terms – and whether the nearly 200 countries that remain in the deal will amend their own obligations.

The US is the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon, behind only China – which, along with India, was singled out by Trump as being favoured under the Paris deal. But both Beijing and New Delhi have reaffirmed their commitment to meeting their targets.

Trump is currently reviewing major US regulations on power plants and car rules that are aimed at reducing carbon emissions. The US Conference of Mayors, which strongly opposed his decision, said its members would continue efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming at the city and state level.

Microsoft was among more than two dozen companies to publish an open letter urging Trump to remain in the accord as an advertisement in several US newspapers as part of an 11th-hour push on Thursday morning.

Trump’s decision signals the US’ intention to increase emissions, which are already fast approaching the 2C band considered crucial by scientists to prevent serious damage to the planet.

This clock estimates how much greenhouse gas the world is emitting right now – and how much we have left to emit if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. In just 24 hours, the world will pump out more than 112m tons (CO2-e).

White House will not say whether Trump denies climate change

David Smith

The White House has declined to say whether Donald Trump believes human activity contributes to climate change as the president pulled America out of the Paris agreement.

Administration officials were also unable to offer revised US carbon emission targets or say what changes to the global landmark accord would persuade Trump to re-enter it. But they did offer assurance that America will abide by the lengthy exit process outlined in the deal, waiting three-and-a-half years to formally withdraw.

'Yes or no?' White House won't say if Trump is a climate change denier

Here’s some Conservative reaction on social media to the US’ withdrawal from the Paris accord – it seems conviction in the unfairness of the deal has only been bolstered by condemnation of Trump’s decision.

Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich)

Every foreign leader attacking Pres Trump over leaving Paris Accord -further proof the deal was one sided and better for foreigners than US

In Australia, there has been a lot of talk about Australia’s bipartisan commitment to the Paris Agreement, in the face of US withdrawal. But concretely, what does that mean?

Australia currently has virtually no climate policies at the national level. The Coalition’s Direct Action policy involves paying polluters to pollute less, but that is fraught with problems, since any of those gains are often lost when other polluters pollute more.

And according to the government’s own projections, the current set of policies will lead to Australia’s emissions rising all the way to 2030, and completely miss the targets set at Paris of 26-28% below 2005 levels.

The chart below shows the government’s most recent emissions projections against the targets committed to in Paris.

Condemnation of the US’ decision to pull out has come from all corners, ranging from Apple to the Vatican; Al Gore called it “reckless and indefensible” and Hillary Clinton said it was a “historic mistake”

France, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the UK and other world leaders have expressed disappointment with the US but reiterated their resolve to tackling climate change through the Paris accord and other initiatives – more on their reaction here

Only the US, Syria and Nicaragua are now not part of the agreement (and Nicaragua resolved not to join because its commitments were not binding)

Refugees International, the Elders and the ACLU have been among the groups to warn of the far-reaching impact of climate change on disadvantaged communities and humanitarian crises

But some commentators have downplayed the significance or potential impact of the move, suggesting that if the US had no intention of reducing its emissions its commitment to the agreement would have been only symbolic anyway

The Empire State building, World Trade Center and City Hall in New York, the Wilson Building in Washington, Boston City Hall, Montreal City Hall and Paris City Hall are among the buildings to have been lit up in green in a show of commitment to action on climate change

India a scapegoat in US' withdrawal?

One of the reasons Trump gave on Thursday for withdrawing from the Paris accord was that it imposed “no meaningful obligations on the world’s leading polluters”, and singled out India as evidence of the fundamental unfairness of the deal:

“India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020. Think of it: India can double their coal production. We’re supposed to get rid of ours.”

Alyssa Ayres (@AyresAlyssa)

After POTUS's broadside about India's coal plants, can't help but think upcoming Modi visit will have some tough conversations.

But as the Guardian’s South Asia correspondent Michael Safi explains, the comparison does not quite stack up:

India’s carbon allowance under the Paris agreement is relatively generous in recognition of the more than 300m Indians still without access to electricity. The country will also need to develop its economy in a carbon-constrained environment, unlike in the west.

But the world’s third-largest carbon pollution emitter is nonetheless on course to exceed the renewable energy targets it set in Paris in 2015 by nearly 50% – and three years ahead of schedule.

Last month saw the wholesale price of wind and solar energy reach record lows in the country, further undercutting the price of coal and spurring international investment in Indian renewables.

Also in May, around 13.7GW of coal projects were cancelled. India’s national energy agency has predicted no new coal plants, other than those already in the pipeline, may be required until at least 2027.

Surveying the toll of fossil-fuelled economic development on its rivers, farmland and air, India has recognised that transitioning to a low-carbon economy is firmly in national interests, as well as those of the planet.

James Astill (@JamesMAstill)

Trump says Paris imposes no obligation on world's biggest polluters. He cites India. whose per cap emissions are a tenth of America's.